Written By MAb Sifa on Tuesday, December 11, 2012 | 2:52 PM

How can we know that so easily? Here are some simple principles that make it obvious (though these problems are not unique to libertarianism.) For brevity and clarity, "many" and "most" are omitted: presume they are there.

Libertarians can only agree with each other if they get so vague that their statements have no fixed meaning. It's the same way we know that no more than one religion could be right, and probably none are.

Libertarians use vague glittering generalities of propaganda (terms like "liberty") rather than specifics such as "liberty for A to do B at an uncompensated cost C to D".

Libertarianism is based on imaginary "natural rights" (including property rights.) Real rights are creations of coercive human institutions such as law.

Written By MAb Sifa on Thursday, November 8, 2012 | 4:38 AM

This latest election continues to show the irrelevance of libertarianism as anything but a cats paw for the rich.

After roughly 30 years of support for the Libertarian Party, the Kochs very successfully showed their true colors by funding/founding the Tea Party movement. Essentially, the idea that rich white males ought to run society in their own interest because that will keep THE OTHERS subordinate. Others such as the poor, the non-white and females.

As far as the Kochs are concerned, libertarians are just "the help", and ought to be hired or fired at will. Thus we had the spectacle of the ownership of CATO becoming publicly disputed. Golly, it was so funny to hear the true believers squeal when they discovered that belief doesn't mean squat against ownership.

Now that CATO is governed by a board instead of by shares, we can easily see who CATO represents. Let's look at the 16 or so board members.

Only two are women. One, Nancy M. Pfotenhauer, is a long-time lobbyist for the Kochs: part of the hired help. The other is Ethelmae C. Humphreys from the Mackinac Center, part of the system of interlocking directorates that so closely resembles the Robber-Baron era corporate practices prohibited by the Clayton Act. She's got family wealth. So it doesn't look as if women are really represented in the board at CATO.

The rest are (judging from names) apparently rich, white males from the financial industry, heads of corporations, or provide interlocking directorates with other Koch-supported organizations.

What do these people represent? Why liberty, obviously: the liberty of the 0.01%. The liberty of the first class citizens -- the large corporations and the ultra rich. Certainly not the liberties of the poor, sick, immigrants, minorities and women. They allow their hirelings to write about those groups, but it is all lip service. And people know it is lip service, which is why those groups are so under-represented in libertarianism.

Libertarians are applauding some of the electoral drug-war rollbacks that have taken place. But those are not thanks to libertarianism: libertarians do not own drug issues. As a matter of fact, they are very peripheral to drug issues. Liberals have long opposed the drug war, and called for regulated usage of drugs. Not freedom to use drugs. And that is what has prevailed. The heavy lifting has not been done by libertarians, but instead has been done by groups like NORML.

It would be very interesting to see libertarianism actually try to do something like get drugs legallized: if a fraction of what libertarians spent on rights for corporations to poison and pollute got spent on promoting regulated legalization, it could happen very rapidly. But it won't, because libertarianism is primarily a cats paw for the rich and their interests.

What's new

James Speth provides a two-part overview of his book, a progressive vision of the USA. He details the problems, their causes, the transformations need to solve them, and the values needed to achieve those solutions. [more...]

What a whopper of a lie. Perhaps it might be true for a sufficiently weak measure of consistency, such as "parroted from the same source." But there is no one libertarian philosophy: there are zillions of variants and interpretations based on wildly contradictory assumptions. If there are any that are philosophically consistent (meaning not leading to contradictions), I haven't seen them. And almost all fail the basic test of consistency with reality. They make claims that are scientifically testable, and fail. (Rand especially.) [more...]

Noah Smith reports the basics of Matching Theory. "Matching Theory is basically an algorithm - a mathematical technology - for finding optimal matches between pairs or groups of people. It incorporates human preferences, optimization, and strategic behavior, so it is economics." [more...]

(Also known as Stable Allocations.) Lloyd Shapley and Alvin Roth won the Nobel prize in economics for this theory. Noah Smith says "Matching Theory is basically an algorithm - a mathematical technology - for finding optimal matches between pairs or groups of people. It incorporates human preferences, optimization, and strategic behavior, so it is economics." [more...]

Markets can theoretically produce Pareto-optimal results. There are plenty of reasons why they might not. And there are other solutions (including centralized solutions) which can also produce Pareto-optimal results [more...]

We are not, in any way, “men who owe no obligation to one another”. Our entire social system is founded on obligation and interconnectedness. This was likely true even in Smith’s time, but his genius was to have hidden it from view and in doing so to construct the founding myth of liberal individualism as it exists in modern times. [more...]

There is a reason why prisons were changed from private to publicly operated as a reform long ago. Private imprisonment has corrupt incentives from the top on down, anywhere a profit can be made from an enslaved prisoner. [more...]

Glittering generalities that conceal crucial differences. If you got your wish for fiscally conservative and socially liberal from the libertarians, it would be like wishes from a monkey's paw. The results of the wish would be so horrible you'd unwish it. [more...]

The Mises Institute praises The Law of the Somalis, written by Michael van Nottenthat. It claims Somalia is now a country based on customary law. As if customary law is any less restrictive or harmful than laws created by governments. Slavery, we must remember, was customary law before all else. [more...]

Educational inequality correlates strongly with decreases in life expectancy in whites, and especially among white women. High inequality isn’t just unfair, it kills. Libertarians generally suggest market solutions: but equality is not something the market provides. [more...]

Libertarians usually think they should have a total freedom to discriminate however they wish. They are wrong. Discriminatory choices which affect markets undercut the assumptions of free markets, and thus destroy market efficiency which libertarians claim to want. In addition to harming others. Our society is a commons, and rampant discrimination is a tragedy of the commons. [more...]

Austrians tend to spout weird theories about depressions being due to "fiat money", and how the one, true currency is gold which will solve all those problems. Despite the fact that most of the world operated on the silver standard for centuries. [more...]

Libertarians hate 'em! But minarchist libertarians (the vast majority) have no coherent answer to how to pay for even a minimal government. Libertarian and Republican criticisms of taxes usually overlap. [more...]

Deadweight loss can be due to overconsumption. "Overconsumption is pervasive. It happens when there are negative externalities, and market participants do not take into account the full social cost of their production and consumption decisions." [more...]

Libertarians love to complain about deadweight losses due to taxation, and frequently exaggerate their size visually. But plenty of market activities also cause deadweight losses. And deadweight losses can be offset many times over by the actions government can take with tax money. [more...]

Libertarians are fond of applying standard Economics 101 microeconomics principles to bash the state. They forget the many concealed ideological biases of Economics 101, they forget market failures and they forget that microeconomics is not enough: you need macroeconomics too. [more...]

"[...] creating such an enclave has been the dream of many fans of small government (or of none at all). Several have had a try at it, but their efforts have always ended in disaster [....]" Has a nice table of failed libertarian nations. [more...]

Libertarians want to experiment with Charter Cities: being given a region of their own to manage themselves. What we will probably see is is a corrupt autarchy controlled by international corporations and dependent on second class citizens or workers commuting in or out. You cannot assume democracy or civil equality for charter cities. [more...]

No philosophy is unified: liberal, conservative, marxist and libertarian philosophies are numerous and varied. Libertarian philosophies are all based on fundamental fantasies which are easily contradicted by common knowledge and science. If they claim to be based on firmer foundations, they make magical, unexplained leaps from those foundations to their conclusions: the logic that would connect them is missing. [more...]

Libertarians play fast and loose with ideas of rights. If they are not resorting to Natural Rights or claiming that all rights are property rights, they are making up rights out of thin air that serve their purposes. Rights are human-created social relationships: we create the many and varied rights we are willing to enforce.[more...]

"We are experiencing now a radicalization of human degradation in unexpected proportions to the point that slavery has come back to support economic growth and wealth accumulation, even though slavery is forbidden almost everywhere, reality is that in today’s world the economy is fed by slave work." [more...]